Colonial California Insured Municipal Fund


77B Accountant's Report on Internal Control

[PricewaterhouseCoopers logo]
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
125 High Street
Boston, Massachusetts 02110




               Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

To the Trustees and Shareholders of Colonial California Insured Municipal Fund

In planning and performing our audits of the financial statements of Colonial
California Insured Municipal Fund (the "Fund") as of and for the year ended
November 30, 2006, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company
Accounting Oversight Board (United States), we considered the Fund's internal
control over financial reporting, including control activities for safeguarding
securities, as a basis for designing our auditing procedures for the purpose of
expressing our opinion on the financial statements and to comply with the
requirements of Form N-SAR, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on
the effectiveness of the Fund's internal control over financial reporting.
Accordingly, we express no such opinion.

The management of the Fund is responsible for establishing and maintaining
effective internal control over financial reporting. In fulfilling this
responsibility, estimates and judgments by management are required to assess the
expected benefits and related costs of controls. A fund's internal control over
financial reporting is a process designed to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of
financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles. Such internal control over financial reporting includes
policies and procedures that provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention
or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or disposition of a fund's
assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of its inherent limitations, internal control over financial reporting
may not prevent or detect misstatements. Also, projections of any evaluation of
effectiveness to future periods are subject to the risk that controls may become
inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance
with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

A control deficiency exists when the design or operation of a control does not
allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned
functions, to prevent or detect misstatements on a timely basis. A significant
deficiency is a control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that
adversely affects the funds' ability to initiate, authorize, record, process or
report external financial data reliably in accordance with generally accepted
accounting principles such that there is more than a remote likelihood that a
misstatement of the funds' annual or interim financial statements that is more
than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected. A material weakness is a
control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that results in more
than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of the annual or interim
financial statements will not be prevented or detected.

Our consideration of the Fund's internal control over financial reporting was
for the limited purpose described in the first paragraph and would not
necessarily disclose all deficiencies in internal control over financial
reporting that might be significant deficiencies or material weaknesses under
standards established by the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
(United States). However, we noted no deficiencies in the
Fund's internal control over financial reporting and its operation, including
controls for safeguarding securities, that we consider to be material weaknesses
as defined above as of November 30, 2006.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of management and the
Board of Trustees of the Funds and the Securities and Exchange Commission and is
not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified
parties.



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Boston, Massachusetts
January 25, 2007




77E Legal Proceedings

On February 9, 2005, Columbia Management Advisors, Inc. (which has since merged
into Banc of America Capital Management, LLC (now named Columbia Management
Advisors, LLC)) ("Columbia") and Columbia Funds Distributor, Inc. (which has
been renamed Columbia Management Distributors, Inc.) (the "Distributor")
(collectively, the "Columbia Group") entered into an Assurance of Discontinuance
with the New York Attorney General ("NYAG") (the "NYAG Settlement") and
consented to the entry of a cease-and-desist order by the Securities and
Exchange Commission ("SEC") (the "SEC Order"). The SEC Order and the NYAG
Settlement are referred to collectively as the "Settlements". The Settlements
contain substantially the same terms and conditions as outlined in the
agreements in principle which Columbia Group entered into with the SEC and NYAG
in March 2004.

Under the terms of the SEC Order, the Columbia Group agreed, among other things,
to: pay $70 million in disgorgement and $70 million in civil money penalties;
cease and desist from violations of the antifraud provisions and certain other
provisions of the federal securities laws; maintain certain compliance and
ethics oversight structures; retain an independent consultant to review the
Columbia Group's applicable supervisory, compliance, control and other policies
and procedures; and retain an independent distribution consultant (see below).
The Columbia Funds have also voluntarily undertaken to implement certain
governance measures designed to maintain the independence of their boards of
trustees. The NYAG Settlement also, among other things, requires Columbia and
its affiliates to reduce management fees for certain Columbia Funds (including
the former Nations Funds) and other mutual funds collectively by $32 million per
year for five years, for a projected total of $160 million in management fee
reductions.

Pursuant to the procedures set forth in the SEC order, the $140 million in
settlement amounts described above will be distributed in accordance with a
distribution plan developed by an independent distribution consultant and
approved by the SEC. The independent distribution consultant has been in
consultation with the staff of the SEC and has submitted a proposed plan of
distribution. The SEC has released the proposed plan of distribution for public
notice and comment but has not yet approved a final plan of distribution.

As a result of these matters or any adverse publicity or other developments
resulting from them, there may be increased redemptions or reduced sales of fund
shares, which could increase transaction costs or operating expenses, or have
other adverse consequences for the funds.

A copy of the SEC Order is available on the SEC website at http://www.sec.gov. A
copy of the NYAG Settlement is available as part of the Bank of America
Corporation Form 8-K filing on February 10, 2005.

In connection with the events described in detail above, various parties have
filed suit against certain funds, the Trustees of the Columbia Funds,
FleetBoston Financial Corporation and its affiliated entities and/or Bank of
America and its affiliated entities.

On February 20, 2004, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred
these cases and cases against other mutual fund companies based on similar
allegations to the United States District Court in Maryland for consolidated or
coordinated pretrial proceedings (the "MDL"). Subsequently, additional related
cases were transferred to the MDL. On September 29, 2004, the plaintiffs in the
MDL filed amended and consolidated complaints. One of these amended complaints
is a putative class action that includes claims under the federal securities
laws and state common law, and that names Columbia, the Distributor, the
Trustees of the Columbia Funds, Bank of America Corporation and others as
defendants. Another of the amended complaints is a derivative action purportedly
on behalf of the Columbia Funds that asserts claims under federal securities
laws and state common law.

On February 25, 2005, Columbia and other defendants filed motions to dismiss the
claims in the pending cases. On March 1, 2006, for reasons stated in the court's
memoranda dated November 3, 2005, the U.S. District Court for the District of
Maryland granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motions to dismiss.
The court dismissed all of the class action claims pending against the Columbia
Funds Trusts. As to Columbia and the Distributor, the claims under the
Securities Act of 1933, the claims under Sections 34(b) and 36(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 ("ICA") and the state law claims were dismissed.
The claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and claims under Section 36(b) of the ICA were not dismissed.

On March 21, 2005, a purported class action was filed in Massachusetts state
court alleging that the conduct, including market timing, entitles Class B
shareholders in certain Columbia funds to an exemption from contingent deferred
sales charges upon early redemption ("the CDSC Lawsuit"). The CDSC Lawsuit has
been removed to federal court in Massachusetts and the federal Judicial Panel
has transferred the CDSC Lawsuit to the MDL.

On April 4, 2006, the plaintiffs and the Columbia defendants named in the MDL,
including the Columbia Funds, entered into a term sheet containing the principal
terms of a stipulation of settlement that would settle all Columbia-related
claims in the MDL described above, including the CDSC Lawsuit. On April 6, 2006,
the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland stayed all actions with
respect to these Columbia-related claims.

In 2004, certain Columbia funds, the Trustees of the Columbia Funds, advisers
and affiliated entities were named as defendants in certain purported
shareholder class and derivative actions making claims, including claims under
the Investment Company and the Investment Advisers Acts of 1940 and state law.
The suits allege, inter alia, that the fees and expenses paid by the funds are
excessive and that the advisers and their affiliates inappropriately used fund
assets to distribute the funds and for other improper purposes. On March 2,
2005, the actions were consolidated in the Massachusetts federal court as In re
Columbia Entities Litigation. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint on June 9, 2005 naming the Columbia Funds as nominal defendants. On
November 30, 2005, the judge dismissed all claims by plaintiffs and ordered that
the case be closed. The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit on December 30, 2005; this appeal is
currently pending. The parties have advised the appellate court that they are
engaged in settlement discussions and the court has, accordingly, deferred the
briefing schedule for the appeal. The settlement has not yet been finalized. Any
settlement ultimately agreed by the parties will be subject to court approval.

This matter is ongoing. Accordingly, no estimate can be made of the financial
impact, if any, of this litigation on any fund.